|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 7:41:59 GMT -5
This is for E also as I peeked ahead to the next post and this speaks to his also (and it will also speak to some things L and I have discussed). Yes, I get what you are saying here. Let's take what physicists say about the stuff of the universe. If you boil it down you come to almost precisely Hua-Yen Buddhism. Nothing exists in itself, everything that exists consists of other stuff that doesn't exist in and of itself, this is called Indra's Net. This is the meaning of emptiness in Buddhism. In physics everything is reduced to fields. A ~thing~ is a combination or overlapping of fields. This would be where two strings combine to ~make~ a knot in a net. Lots of knots, you have a net. Lots of "knots" and you have the elements, combinations of knots and you end up with people, and [human] consciousness, and Consciousness is from-what the strings that form the "nets" originated. Now, just because everything originated from Consciousness, are you going to say trees aren't ~real~, suns aren't ~real~, oxygen isn't ~real~, dirt isn't ~real~, physical bodies are not ~real~? Even Hua-Yen Buddhists don't say this, even The Dalai Lama does not say this. Emptiness in Buddhism does not negate people, places, things and stuff. Even just ordinary contemplation of all this can make you (self) very tiny and humble, and yes, can cause significant change. But it doesn't mean everything is reduced to "zero", and it does not make all things equal (since/because everything is formed from the same fields/knotted nets/Consciousness). This, BTW, is what Gopal does, and where he makes his mistake. I have no problem using the term relatively ~real~. (I read her account...I think in The Hazy Moon of Enlightenment, and Yasutani, super dude, love him). I don't talk about whether or not things are real. As I've said many times, the term no longer makes sense to me. Yes, I know, that's why I write ~real~ especially for you, means relatively real, more-or-less. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 7:46:18 GMT -5
Who or what can be free from suffering? In your model there is only conciousness and appearances....so can consciousness be freed from suffering or the appearance? I Excellent question.I think we would all agree Consciousness (big C) doesn't suffer. Yet suffering exists. This has to be accounted for. Is suffering merely an appearance? (Does that mean illusion?) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 7:50:01 GMT -5
You're playing fast and loose with contexts too. In the context of dreams, there is nothing physical. I see all experience as physical i.e sense of taste, sense of smell, sense of feeling etc. You can't have it both ways...you use the example of nightly dreams to show that both waking state and nightly dreams are an appearance in Consciousness. Well both, equally, are also physical experience. If you are going to acknowledge the existence of an Andrew, with sensory organs, brain and heart, who can feel both happy and sad, then I can adjust my answer. To enigma, in the context of dreams, certain brain waves are present, IOW, there is a verfiable physical manifestation. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 7:53:19 GMT -5
I would say Andrew falls asleep and has a nightly dream, but then I would also say Andrew has a brain, heart, sensory organs. Gopal does not think Andrew has those things. Do you? Yes, Gopal doesn't think Andrew has brain,heart,sensory organs. I haven't gotten to your answer to my "in any context" question. So, to qualify your answer to andrew, Do you mean to say?: in any context, no. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 8:01:17 GMT -5
I think you have no basis to make this claim, you're just assuming it. Where am I assuming? I am consciousness and I am perceiving everything, It happens both in my dream and in my reality. Aren't I? Yes. But you are making everything in-between a black box, it's not, we know a lot about in-between (but not nearly everything). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 8:03:40 GMT -5
Because the eyes aren't really separate from the body. Take them out and they don't function. It's just a common-sense observation about object boundaries that suggests something uncommon about them, and it's been the subject of ridicule here for the past two weeks. I find that interesting.  Indubitably. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 8:07:30 GMT -5
I see all experience as physical i.e sense of taste, sense of smell, sense of feeling etc. You can't have it both ways...you use the example of nightly dreams to show that both waking state and nightly dreams are an appearance in Consciousness. Well both, equally, are also physical experience. If you are going to acknowledge the existence of an Andrew, with sensory organs, brain and heart, who can feel both happy and sad, then I can adjust my answer. To enigma, in the context of dreams, certain brain waves are present, IOW, there is a verfiable physical manifestation. Yeah that suggests he is talking about humans dreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2016 8:12:02 GMT -5
Gopal, your posting is way up in the clouds, virtually completely abstract. You don't post as if the world exists, but it obviously does or what's in your mind would not reach others via the internet. Comprende? That's not way up in the clouds, It's simple seeing. You start to agree that what I have been speaking is logical, now you start to talk in a different way, Are you just coming here just for an argument? can't you show some kind of integrity to what you write? I agree with you up to a point. It's like we climb a nice mountain path, beautiful view. We walk up to the edge of a 500 ft. cliff. And then you jump off. I know not to jump. ...You are trying to cross a 100 ft. chasm with a 90 ft. rope. I know it can't be done. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 8:17:09 GMT -5
Yes, Gopal doesn't think Andrew has brain,heart,sensory organs. I haven't gotten to your answer to my "in any context" question. So, to qualify your answer to andrew, Do you mean to say?: in any context, no. Yeah again, that is the key....we're just looking for one measly context lol throw us a bone here gopal! Im not sure he gets the idea of contextual truths or relative truths though, it took me a couple of years talking on forums to get it. I used to argue categorically that there was no choice and no free will, and then I was shown that there are always different ways to see things. All depends on our viewing angle, and when we speak on a forum we are always taking a particular angle. When gopal compares animals to humans he is taking a physical body angle. He can say afterwards 'in truth there are no physical bodies', but he has then changed his angle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 8:23:18 GMT -5
Spirit having a human experience doesn't mean that there really are humans. Yes it does. It's right there in the sentence. It's not really my expression so my desire to defend it isn't that high. It's one of Andrew's that the internet gave him through Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Though any contemplation of it can reveal that the primacy of the "I Am" is the source of all human experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 9:33:52 GMT -5
I did not say it switches the mode. I said consciousness is imagining dream as well reality in the same way, it differs in the way it creates the stability. These were your words ''No, It surely makes a difference, it would puts us into creator mode. If we haven't seen this, then we would remain in perceiving mode.'' Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world?page=5409#ixzz4KQ6pMIsXSo what switches modes? There is no switching the mode here. We are always been creator no matter whether we are realizing it or not. But Only when we know, that would inform you that you are not only perceiver but you are also a creator. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 9:34:52 GMT -5
When I say no brain, no physical body either. Why this is not clear to you? So what constitutes the appearance that is Gopal or Andrew exactly? You speak of Gopal often...Gopal programs, lives in India, drinks pepsi, watches movies....these are all things you have said. So what is the appearance of Gopal that you talk about, if not a body? Presumably you see bodies all the time...what are they if they are not bodies? My body appearance is named as Gopal, yours is named as Andrew. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 9:36:04 GMT -5
There is no switching the mode here. We are always been creator no matter whether we are realizing it or not. But Only when we know, that would inform you that you are not only perceiver but you are also a creator. Inform who? Consciousness or the appearance? and when you say 'only when we know' are you talking about Consciousness or appearance? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 16, 2016 9:38:14 GMT -5
So what constitutes the appearance that is Gopal or Andrew exactly? You speak of Gopal often...Gopal programs, lives in India, drinks pepsi, watches movies....these are all things you have said. So what is the appearance of Gopal that you talk about, if not a body? Presumably you see bodies all the time...what are they if they are not bodies? My body appearance is named as Gopal, yours is named as Andrew. Okay, thank you. And this body appearance appears to have legs, arms and skin right? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 16, 2016 9:45:17 GMT -5
Sure. Hawkins taught about his healing work on himself (among other things, of course) for a long time before one of his students asked why he still wears glasses, at which point he took them off and never put them back on. He bumped into things for a while too. Hehe He talked in terms of "cancelling the program". So yes, it's tricky even when one realizes the truth of it. I say the mind is strongly influenced by the collective, and so embodying your realizations can be challenging. I first got glasses in my twenties. I haven't needed them for decades. My understandings changed, and so did my vision, along with some other aspects of my physical well being. Cool. Now ya just gotta deal with that pesky skin burnin' when out in the sun issue.   |
|
